Not Christian?

(Note: I originally thought I wouldn't be able to say anything that David V. Mason hadn't said in this article about his own take on the topic. Turns out, I did have something else to say. But I echo a lot of his thoughts, and I also would like to say that my opinions are mine: I don't represent the Church nor any other member, whose opinions will differ from my own.)

As a lifelong member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, I used to be confused about the seemingly deliberate unwillingness of other denominations to allow me (metaphorically) within the confines of the tent of Christianity. As a full-time missionary in Florida, I spent a couple years trying to talk to people about the Church and its beginnings. I hoped to help them explore a spiritual experience that had benefited me and I hoped would help them, too. During that time, I had a rough time embracing the "Mormon" label that is more frequently applied to members of the Church, in part because of Church policy*. But the acceptance I craved was that I be recognized instantly--because of my familiar uniform--as a Christian, not simply a Mormon.

I would have been the scrawny one on the right of the picture.

There's nothing wrong with wanting to help people, nor with missionary work. What I think caused me problems was the desire to be accepted as something that I wasn't: a Christian.

I can imagine that a lot of members of the Church would bristle at that assertion. Back when Mitt Romney was running his presidential campaign, there was a lot of attention on the "Mormon Moment". The Church took advantage of that (and the unaffiliated musical The Book of Mormon, which I haven't seen) to increase their profile in the public consciousness. This only makes sense from a marketing point of view--this is why books turned into movies get new covers and rereleases--but it is interesting to see the way the Church considered itself at that moment. In the fall of 2011, Elder Ballard of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles gave a talk entitled "The Importance of a Name". This outlined the reason that we call ourselves "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints" and why "Mormon" isn't a fitting title. Because of the nature of how members respond to talks given in General Conference, as well as other announcements of policies, it's very clear that the Church's view of itself is one of being a Christian denomination and the focus of the religion is on Christ, rather than on Mormon or Joseph Smith. I know the official line, but I feel it only fits in under the broadest sense of the names.

What's In A Name?

Juliet has been asking that question for over 400 years, and it's one that is still pertinent. Within fiction, two dissimilar works (Eragon and Les Miserables) both have important plot- and world building conceits that revolve around names--in the first, it's a key to the magic system; in the second, it is the possibility of redemption and evasion. Indeed, the concept of "what's in a name" is so deep and profound that I don't think anyone has really plumbed the depths of the possibilities. 

I'm not trying to diminish the importance of the name. But in terms of Mormonism (which, as I use it here, is the philosophical, historical, and religious combination of the movement started by Joseph Smith in 1830) and its inclusion into Christianity, I don't think there's a strong enough connection to say that one is the other.

The easiest reason for this is because being a Christian is as self-identifiable as declaring that one is a vegan or of the Republican party. Calling yourself a label, identifying with it, is without criteria. I could call myself Sikh if I wished. But I'm not a Sikh (and Sikhs are awesome, by the way), because I don't abide by any of the precepts of the religion. I'm not a vegan because I love to eat meat and animal products (and very few people I know are actual Republicans, because they aren't paying dues to the party; they identify with and vote for the group, therefore calling themselves Republican).

But if a person claims to be, well, anything, and then doesn't abide by the boundaries within the identifier, the claims are likely spurious. And the more I learn about what Christianity is, the more I realize that Mormonism, whatever it may be, ain't that. 

Historiography and Hagiography

Considering the age of Christianity, there are, unsurprisingly, a lot of barnacles that have attached itself to the concept. For a long time, though, I was taught that the Great Apostasy** explains the derivations of Christianity. And the linchpin of the whole Apostasy was codified in the Nicene Creed. Now, if you read the Creed, it's somewhat ambiguous, and it certainly doesn't give a lot of grist for the Restoration argument, which basically rests on the idea that the correct concept of God had been lost. The concept of the Trinity is a crucial doctrine, one that Mormonism soundly rejects. But it's the Athanasian Creed that, to me, more clearly demarcates the fault lines between Mormonism and Christianity. In terms of what Christianity is, the Creeds of the late Roman empire are its bedrock.

Remember, up until Constantine, being called Christian was an insult, a derogatory term. Early Christianity was a rebellious group, very different from its Roman--and even more so from its modern--iterations. The forging of the Catholic Church essentially created the definition of what Christianity is. 

The history of Christianity is, for all intents and purposes, the history of Catholicism. Even the Greek Orthodox tradition is essentially generating definitions against Catholicism--what they are in relation to them. Even a survey course of the Catholic Church (that is, of Christianity) throughout history gives a very strong sense of problems. Yes, men like Saint Francis of Assisi prove that many people were bettered because of the teachings of Jesus, but taken as a whole, Francis is often viewed as the exception, rather than the rule. What springs to mind when the so-called Dark Ages' (which weren't particularly dark, I have to say) religion is invoked? Crusades, corruption in the Church, the Spanish Inquisition, pogroms...the list of atrocities in the name of God are lengthy. 

Add to that the concept of sainthood--and what it means to be a saint--within this almost-two-millennia's worth of history, and now the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is hitting additional linguistic issues. Saints were not the lay members of  Christianity, so how could a church claiming to be Christian refer to all its members as saints? The historical Christianity doesn't hold the same structure, authorities, or philosophies. Its nomenclature is uniquely defined and self-referential within its own context. Calling Mormonism Christian and Mormons saints is a religious appropriation of a movement that goes back into antiquity. Little wonder there's resistance to the idea.

Loving Christ Without Christianity

Of course, in America, the primary Christians that Mormons try to court are the WASPs, but their mistrust of Mormonism comes from their own experiences and history, which I'm not interested in repeating here. The fact of the matter is, the nature of Mormonism's truth claims--apostasy, restoration, continuing revelation, pseudepigrapha turned scripture--places the LDS Church at complete odds with the definitions of American Christianity. Many Methodist won't be interested in "common grounds" in terms of doctrinal compromise. The most common refrain about Mormons is "They worship a different Jesus." 

That's true. The Jesus within His Church of Latter-day Saints is a different entity, one unbounded by the definitions of Christianity. The Mormon Jesus is one of inclusion, visiting the peoples of the Americas. The Mormon Jesus is one who condemns killing, which means the Crusades of Christianity would be part of apostasy--a part of a history that Mormonism doesn't abide. The Mormon Jesus is, indeed, different from the Jesus of the past. 

And that's okay. The whole point of the Restoration, from a Mormon point of view, was to disentangle Christ from Christianity, to reclaim Him within a new context. I agree with Richard D. Land, who argued that Mormonism is the fourth Abrahamic faith (in chronological order, Judaism, Christianity, Islam, Mormonism), as that very much seems to be the pattern of religious heretics branching off the main trunk, codifying new scripture and prophets, and then growing into its own tradition thereafter. 

In sum: I feel the dictionary definition of "follower of the teachings of Jesus Christ" are far too flaccid to cover what being a Christian is--and, yes, I'll acquiesce that such a definition applies to Mormonism, too. But there's a lot more to being a Christian than that definition implies, and there's a lot more to being a Mormon than claiming to be a Christian. I do not deny that names matter, but I believe the name Christian is not applicable to what I understand of God, Jesus, and the nature of human spiritual destiny. I'm not a Christian. 

I'm a Mormon.

---
* If you glance at the URL in that link, it's actually part of "MormonNewsroom", which somewhat undercuts the policy. I think I'll call that irony and move on.
** Super-short version: The death of the original apostles in the first century A.D. meant that the authority of running the Church that Jesus Christ formed, called the priesthood, was taken from the earth. The subsequent centuries saw man trying to follow God without divine authority, until it was restored to Joseph Smith in New England during the Second Great Awakening.